SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
8/16-8/18 Red Sox @ Pirates Series Thread
|
Post by benzinger on Aug 19, 2022 9:54:45 GMT -5
This was a horrible signing and, unfortunately, we all saw it coming. Paxton isn’t even that good when he is healthy(which he never is). Bloom lit a pile of money on fire for this guy in a season where there was a cash crunch with the roster. Now he’s basically forced to double-down and pick up Paxton’s option to justify the original expenditure. Hill was a waste of money too. They could have signed much better options with all that cash. I don't know what your qualifications are for "good" but to me Paxton when healthy is a very good pitcher. He's a career 3.59 ERA pitcher, which I know ERA doesn't tell all the facts but that's pretty dang good. So overall I disagree that it was a horrible signing, it hasn't worked out and looks like it may not work out overall but it was a calculated low risk/high reward move that at the time I could understand and I was all for. I also disagree that he's "forced" to double down, as he absolutely is not. He can pretty easily decline the option and wash his hands of the move if they decide Paxton won't be healthy for 2023. I'm not saying they couldn't have signed someone else with the money on Hill and Paxton but if you want to say they could have signed "much" better options with the cash spent on Hill and Paxton, tell me who that would have been? That’s just the problem. He’s almost never healthy. And Bloom took a flyer on an injury-prone guy coming off the most serious injury a pitcher can have. It was not low-risk. Low risk was signing Marwin Gonzalez last year. This was a $10m outlay for nothing at all. Paxton had a REALLY good 2017. I’ll give him that. But he’s never made 30 starts in a season and he’s never gone over 165 innings in a season. Between him, Wacha and Hill you basically have 3 guys who are hurt way too often. You ask what they could have done with this $10m and I’m not really sure without digging into last year’s free agent class. But that’s a lot of money and I’m sure Chaim would love a do-over there.
|
|
|
Post by ematz1423 on Aug 19, 2022 10:00:16 GMT -5
I don't know what your qualifications are for "good" but to me Paxton when healthy is a very good pitcher. He's a career 3.59 ERA pitcher, which I know ERA doesn't tell all the facts but that's pretty dang good. So overall I disagree that it was a horrible signing, it hasn't worked out and looks like it may not work out overall but it was a calculated low risk/high reward move that at the time I could understand and I was all for. I also disagree that he's "forced" to double down, as he absolutely is not. He can pretty easily decline the option and wash his hands of the move if they decide Paxton won't be healthy for 2023. I'm not saying they couldn't have signed someone else with the money on Hill and Paxton but if you want to say they could have signed "much" better options with the cash spent on Hill and Paxton, tell me who that would have been? That’s just the problem. He’s almost never healthy. And Bloom took a flyer on an injury-prone guy coming off the most serious injury a pitcher can have. It was not low-risk. Low risk was signing Marwin Gonzalez last year. This was a $10m outlay for nothing at all. Paxton had a REALLY good 2017. I’ll give him that. But he’s never made 30 starts in a season and he’s never gone over 165 innings in a season. Between him, Wacha and Hill you basically have 3 guys who are hurt way too often. You ask what they could have done with this $10m and I’m not really sure without digging into last year’s free agent class. But that’s a lot of money and I’m sure Chaim would love a do-over there. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, to me signing a talented albeit injury prone pitcher to a one year 10 million dollar deal with the upside of having the two year option is low risk. I also don't consider 10 million dollars on a one year deal to be a lot of money in terms of the Red Sox and their payroll. I don't see them getting much for 10 million in last year's free agent crop. I suppose they could have used the money to sign Pham instead which I would point to and say yes it would have been a better allocation of that 10 million but I still get why they made the gamble on Paxton. I'm not going to crap on the deal right now since I knew at the time that the outcome we are looking at right now was certainly possible. It hasn't worked out, not every deal does.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2022 10:05:34 GMT -5
That’s just the problem. He’s almost never healthy. And Bloom took a flyer on an injury-prone guy coming off the most serious injury a pitcher can have. It was not low-risk. Low risk was signing Marwin Gonzalez last year. This was a $10m outlay for nothing at all. Paxton had a REALLY good 2017. I’ll give him that. But he’s never made 30 starts in a season and he’s never gone over 165 innings in a season. Between him, Wacha and Hill you basically have 3 guys who are hurt way too often. You ask what they could have done with this $10m and I’m not really sure without digging into last year’s free agent class. But that’s a lot of money and I’m sure Chaim would love a do-over there. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, to me signing a talented albeit injury prone pitcher to a one year 10 million dollar deal with the upside of having the two year option is low risk. I also don't consider 10 million dollars on a one year deal to be a lot of money in terms of the Red Sox and their payroll. I don't see them getting much for 10 million in last year's free agent crop. I suppose they could have used the money to sign Pham instead which I would point to and say yes it would have been a better allocation of that 10 million but I still get why they made the gamble on Paxton. I'm not going to crap on the deal right now since I knew at the time that the outcome we are looking at right now was certainly possible. It hasn't worked out, not every deal does. But if you look at it as a one-year deal, you *knew* you’d get nothing. He was never getting back until near the end of the season, best case scenario. The deal only made sense if he was/is 100% next year. So coming off a surprisingly good year, you spend min. $10 million on… 2023. And yes, as you say, this was strange in the context of not addressing needs. And the money very much does matter if the intention is to be under the tax line every few years… it cost them this season.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 19, 2022 10:12:54 GMT -5
I don't know what your qualifications are for "good" but to me Paxton when healthy is a very good pitcher. He's a career 3.59 ERA pitcher, which I know ERA doesn't tell all the facts but that's pretty dang good. So overall I disagree that it was a horrible signing, it hasn't worked out and looks like it may not work out overall but it was a calculated low risk/high reward move that at the time I could understand and I was all for. I also disagree that he's "forced" to double down, as he absolutely is not. He can pretty easily decline the option and wash his hands of the move if they decide Paxton won't be healthy for 2023. I'm not saying they couldn't have signed someone else with the money on Hill and Paxton but if you want to say they could have signed "much" better options with the cash spent on Hill and Paxton, tell me who that would have been? That’s just the problem. He’s almost never healthy. And Bloom took a flyer on an injury-prone guy coming off the most serious injury a pitcher can have. It was not low-risk. Low risk was signing Marwin Gonzalez last year. This was a $10m outlay for nothing at all. Paxton had a REALLY good 2017. I’ll give him that. But he’s never made 30 starts in a season and he’s never gone over 165 innings in a season. Between him, Wacha and Hill you basically have 3 guys who are hurt way too often. You ask what they could have done with this $10m and I’m not really sure without digging into last year’s free agent class. But that’s a lot of money and I’m sure Chaim would love a do-over there. These three guys cost $17 million in AAV with no long-term risk and have combined for 2.1 fWAR in two-thirds of a season with a 3.50ish ERA in 160 IP.
It's fine to be skeptical of these reclamation project deals for Richards and Paxton, but it is weird to me to point to these as the big problem when the spending on these guys has been the most efficient allocation in the starting rotation. Compare what Sale, Price, and Eovaldi have given them for $59 million this year...
Also the idea that Bloom will be forced to double down on Paxton by exercising the option makes absolutely no sense. Why would he have negotiated the option in the first place if that were the case?
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Aug 19, 2022 10:17:30 GMT -5
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, to me signing a talented albeit injury prone pitcher to a one year 10 million dollar deal with the upside of having the two year option is low risk. I also don't consider 10 million dollars on a one year deal to be a lot of money in terms of the Red Sox and their payroll. I don't see them getting much for 10 million in last year's free agent crop. I suppose they could have used the money to sign Pham instead which I would point to and say yes it would have been a better allocation of that 10 million but I still get why they made the gamble on Paxton. I'm not going to crap on the deal right now since I knew at the time that the outcome we are looking at right now was certainly possible. It hasn't worked out, not every deal does. But if you look at it as a one-year deal, you *knew* you’d get nothing. He was never getting back until near the end of the season, best case scenario. The deal only made sense if he was/is 100% next year. So coming off a surprisingly good year, you spend min. $10 million on… 2023. And yes, as you say, this was strange in the context of not addressing needs. And the money very much does matter if the intention is to be under the tax line every few years… it cost them this season. That's not true; he originally projected to be back mid-season, and in the best-case scenario would be a productive contributor to a stretch run and a formidable piece of a playoff rotation. By all means, be critical of the deal if you like - if anything the fact that it didn't work out this way strengthens your point that it was a bad risk to take on - but the idea was that he'd help in 2022.
Also, again: it's a $5 million AAV this year. Slightly more than Diekman is making. Call it a mistake if you like, but it's not some huge calamity for the payroll.
|
|
|
Post by manfred on Aug 19, 2022 11:10:53 GMT -5
But if you look at it as a one-year deal, you *knew* you’d get nothing. He was never getting back until near the end of the season, best case scenario. The deal only made sense if he was/is 100% next year. So coming off a surprisingly good year, you spend min. $10 million on… 2023. And yes, as you say, this was strange in the context of not addressing needs. And the money very much does matter if the intention is to be under the tax line every few years… it cost them this season. That's not true; he originally projected to be back mid-season, and in the best-case scenario would be a productive contributor to a stretch run and a formidable piece of a playoff rotation. By all means, be critical of the deal if you like - if anything the fact that it didn't work out this way strengthens your point that it was a bad risk to take on - but the idea was that he'd help in 2022.
Also, again: it's a $5 million AAV this year. Slightly more than Diekman is making. Call it a mistake if you like, but it's not some huge calamity for the payroll.
What are they over? What does Pham make? Calamity? No. Bad move? I’d call it a *strange* move. They had an obvious weakness in OF, and they ignored that to take a flyer on a guy who has a brutal injury history.
|
|
|
Post by benzinger on Aug 19, 2022 11:37:43 GMT -5
That’s just the problem. He’s almost never healthy. And Bloom took a flyer on an injury-prone guy coming off the most serious injury a pitcher can have. It was not low-risk. Low risk was signing Marwin Gonzalez last year. This was a $10m outlay for nothing at all. Paxton had a REALLY good 2017. I’ll give him that. But he’s never made 30 starts in a season and he’s never gone over 165 innings in a season. Between him, Wacha and Hill you basically have 3 guys who are hurt way too often. You ask what they could have done with this $10m and I’m not really sure without digging into last year’s free agent class. But that’s a lot of money and I’m sure Chaim would love a do-over there. These three guys cost $17 million in AAV with no long-term risk and have combined for 2.1 fWAR in two-thirds of a season with a 3.50ish ERA in 160 IP.
It's fine to be skeptical of these reclamation project deals for Richards and Paxton, but it is weird to me to point to these as the big problem when the spending on these guys has been the most efficient allocation in the starting rotation. Compare what Sale, Price, and Eovaldi have given them for $59 million this year...
Also the idea that Bloom will be forced to double down on Paxton by exercising the option makes absolutely no sense. Why would he have negotiated the option in the first place if that were the case?
Don’t worry. I am not equating Paxton with Sale and Price in any way. Eovaldi doesn’t bug me because they’ve basically gotten their money’s worth with him. That contract is hardly on the same level. As for the Paxton option, I think the same logic will be used to justify picking it up: “It’s one year”, “it’s low risk/high upside”, “if he pitches like a #3 starter, he’s a bargain” etc... If they were willing to pay him $10m to rehab this year, why not pay him $13m when he should be healthy(in theory), right? I think it’s just chasing bad money with good, though. I think Paxton is fool’s gold.
|
|
|
Post by bosoxnation on Aug 19, 2022 14:48:15 GMT -5
Is Franchy possibly our starting CF next season?
|
|
|
Post by seamus on Aug 19, 2022 14:55:43 GMT -5
I think you're more likely to see Jacoby Ellsbury on opening day than Franchy.
|
|
|